Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B990C433F5 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 19:22:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236034AbhLHTZ1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Dec 2021 14:25:27 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54282 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239978AbhLHTZI (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Dec 2021 14:25:08 -0500 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4601:e00::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 452F0C061746; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 11:21:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A586B82275; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 19:21:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 18BBAC341C8; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 19:21:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1638991291; bh=flAko3jtQKmtx9X5Z+Aj4PgqNh/wtnJ0lsVhb+dcL30=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Nishq4Yzs1p2DF8s+QCR43LiGoin7Ct7ZAX8cuwZLtFz0UIWU29andkeh3c4Hn0F2 yCcva0gwWef/zf52MUClmF3LF9n08yRH6Rf6ZmO8CheFZeGLvZMzZKFKzVu8p3Ym3J X4WKUdWPjcI3OMLW9j+Yamz+tZ8t6mhMCnB6nfsw= Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 20:21:28 +0100 From: Greg KH To: "David E. Box" Cc: lee.jones@linaro.org, hdegoede@redhat.com, bhelgaas@google.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com, mgross@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Mark Gross Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND V2 3/6] platform/x86/intel: Move intel_pmt from MFD to Auxiliary Bus Message-ID: References: <20211208015015.891275-1-david.e.box@linux.intel.com> <20211208015015.891275-4-david.e.box@linux.intel.com> <7e78e6311cb0d261892f7361a1ef10130436f358.camel@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 11:09:48AM -0800, David E. Box wrote: > On Wed, 2021-12-08 at 19:11 +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 09:47:26AM -0800, David E. Box wrote: > > > On Wed, 2021-12-08 at 17:22 +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 05:50:12PM -0800, David E. Box wrote: > > > > > +static struct pci_driver intel_vsec_pci_driver = { > > > > > +???????.name = "intel_vsec", > > > > > +???????.id_table = intel_vsec_pci_ids, > > > > > +???????.probe = intel_vsec_pci_probe, > > > > > +}; > > > > > > > > So when the PCI device is removed from the system you leak resources and > > > > have dangling devices? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > Why no PCI remove driver callback? > > > > > > After probe all resources are device managed. There's nothing to explicitly clean up. When the > > > PCI > > > device is removed, all aux devices are automatically removed. This is the case for the SDSi > > > driver > > > as well. > > > > Where is the "automatic cleanup" happening?? As this pci driver is bound > > to the PCI device, when the device is removed, what is called in this > > driver to remove the resources allocated in the probe callback? > > > > confused, > > devm_add_action_or_reset(&pdev->dev, intel_vsec_remove_aux, auxdev) Wow that is opaque. Why not do it on remove instead? > intel_vsec_remove_aux() gets called when the PCI device is removed. It calls auxiliary_device_unit() > which in turn calls the auxdev release() function that cleans up resources. Does this happen when the device is removed, or when the binding of driver <-> device is removed? > When the auxdev is removed, all resources that were dev_m added by the SDSi driver are released too > which is why it has no remove() either. I'll add the tests that check this. Please do so and document it well, as that is an odd "pattern". thanks, greg k-h